“I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.” — Bill Cosby

Cos said it right when he made that point years ago, that you cannot try to please everybody if you’re to find success. You just have to know …

I’d have to hunt down the links (posted on WFA), but I do remember reading quite a few posts from women who did and do not like Alan Moore’s LOST GIRLS. Female Comic Bloggers & Feminists are not the BORG. There is no group mind.

Sure some people might have called it art and talked about subtext and the play of irony to the known stories. Or whatever they felt like saying while holding it in a positive light.

Other people thought Alan Moore was smoking crack and sipping 40’s and were trying to figure out if he meant such iconic figures to be seen as smoke and mirrors yoni healers and oedipal mother substitutes.

I’m sure if the more general female population were exposed to LOST GIRLS there’d be even more varied opinions.

Personally LOST GIRLS isn’t for me. But I think the artwork and concept can invite debate and varied ways of looking at it. The MJ statuette strikes a universal chord, which is probably why it seems like every man should be wary of the woman next to him, should she get a signal from the mother center and leap to tear him limb from limb like inverse Stepford wives.

(that was snark btw)

You mentioning Andrew Vachs. That brought back memories when you went toe to toe to eyepatch with him at a retailers panel at San Diego one time. I was sitting behind you when the whole place erupted.

I think I got that on tape somewhere..

~

Coat

Re: Moore’s subtext of love and war — What exactly was the reason for the use of the iconic characters? Was there some specific subtext of using Alice or Dorothy or Wendy? While I’m sure Mr. Moore has some reason that doesn’t sound like he exploited those characters so as to tweak sensitivities of those who may have grown up thinking that the three characters will forever remain pure, can you see how others might not feel the same way?

Are we solely judging the sexploitative merits of some particular artwork on the artists intentions?

Alan Moore has devoted his life to subtext and irony. Dorothy, Alice and Wendy long ago passed into folklore and are iconic characters whose iconic nature can be examined from many angles. The subtext and irony of LOST GIRLS is implicit in its content, the message prefering love– no matter how perverted — over war is an obvious one…maybe too obvious, as some reviews have stated.

Okay not let’s take the MJ statue. To begin with, we don’t even know if she’s washing clothes or simply doing the laundry. The statue medium is not well suited to showing degrees of dampness. According to the website:

Sideshow Collectibles, Marvel Comics and Adam Hughes are proud to present the latest addition from the Marvel Comiquette line. The Mary Jane Comiquette was designed by artist Adam Hughes, who’s critically acclaimed realistic illustration meets “good-girl” pin-up style art has made him one of the comic book industry’s most sought after artists and a perennial fan favorite. The consummate “girl next door,” Mary Jane discovers that her superhero husband has slipped some of his laundry into the mix, but she’s not looking too displeased about Peter’s naughty little transgression. Each piece is cast in high quality polystone, then hand finished and hand painted to exacting standards. An absolute must for any true believer’s collection.
Okay so she’s sorting the laundry. And finds Peter’s uniform. And smiles. I get it. A cute moment, in a Dell Four-Color cover kind of way. The pin-up visualization of MJ is not the text of the statue, it’s the subtext. And it’s the overly (some say) sexualized subtext that people are criticizing.

If someone other than “Alan Moore” attempted to sell that same comic book concept, I would suspect he/she wouldn’t get the same pass. If I’m wrong, say so. I just didn’t see too many so-called feminists decrying Gebbie’s artwork as exploitative — a quick search points out just the opposite.

To sum:
Sexploitative cheesecake pose by Mary Jane - decried offensive to feminists
Sexploitative erotic trysts by Wendy, Alice, and Dorothy - lauded as art by feminists

And what’s worse, I am making my point as anonymous for a reason.
I truly do see a level of hypocrisy here, and I’m surprised that others haven’t seen it as well.

Both items (the MJ statuette and the LOST GIRLS comic book are art work, and they should both fall under the same level of scrutiny.

If I’m wrong, fine. Show me the error of my ways. If you feel this isn’t related to this thread, fine. Dismiss me out of hand. Or discuss it elsewhere, and link me to it. I promise to read someone else’s thoughts on this.

Jimmie! Somebody brought BQ up at my Journal in context with the Mary Jane statue. With apologies for misspelling your name, here’s what I had to say:

“Funny thing is, Bomb Queen doesn’t bother me and here’s why: She’s never presented as anything other than what she is.

BQ may be a sexist fantasy, but Jimmy, (her creator) is honest about it. She is what she is on the cover of every book and, as such, I am free to pass her by as not my cuppa.”

The thing about MJ’s statue is that it’s not an aberration. It comes on the heals of many other depictions (2D and 3D) of otherwise well rounded characters being reduced to the level of spank-fodder. It comes on the heals of Avi Arad saying,

“In the comics, the easiest way to bring real life into the life of the hero is to give him a spouse.” or…

“Lois Lane and the other women, in the comic books, the woman is the other world that represents all of us, and she is there to support, she is there to demand, she is there to observe and to make you think of her as an ambassador of the rest of us.”

It comes on the heals of a female characters who are raped and/or tortured to death for the purpose of plot.

And all of this is interwoven with the wholly disingenuous, yet entirely plaintive cry of, “Why don’t women read our comics?”

The MJ statue just the latest final straw. And speaking as a woman involved with this industry, I’m sick and tired of having my back broken.

I still don’t get why we are bringing up comic book swag which has little to nothing to do with the actual stories told by creators.

As for the actual Beat post itself: Great post. Like to see the rest of it. But don’t say we should stop talking about the statue. That’s the “be quiet” argument used over and over again throughout HISTORY.

….uh….right. Your point is?

Interesting point. At one point, I think Betty Brant became a reporter, to make her “stronger” and such. They didn’t want to portray her in the comics as “just” a secretary, although that seems good enough for millions of movie-goers. I know of one woman in my office who wouldn’t appreciate being thought of as “just a secretary”, although she doesn’t mind being acknowledged as a “secretary” since that’s her job title. No disrespect intended, none interpretted, especially since she basically keeps the workflow flowwing. But would she suddenly turn around and beat up The Chameleon or Kraven the Hunter? Hell no …

Maybe at some point, instead of reinventing a character, we have to decide that their stories have been told, and let them move on and bring in new characters.

“I bet plenty of people would buy a statuette of Charlie Brown kicking the football-wielding Lucy Van pelt’s head in, but that wouldn’t be a faithful rendition of the characters.” I would laugh at such a statue, but I think seeing poor Lucy getting pummeled every-day by Dark Side, Symbiote-Wearing Charlie Brown on my display shelf would be too morbid.